Risk, Reliability and Safety: Innovating Theory and Practice Walls, Revie & Bedford (Eds)

2017 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-1-138-02997-2

Establishing a central operation approval system in ship management

companies based on a human reliability assessment model

Omer Soner
Department of Maritime Transportation & Management Engineering, Istanbul Technical University,
Istanbul, Turkey

Emre Akyuz
Department of Maritime Management, Bursa Technical University, Bursa, Turkey

Metin Celik
Department of Marine Engineering, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey

ABSTRACT: This study aims at establishing a central approval mechanism in ship management companies
to monitor the probable human errors along with the critical operations. The idea behind the paper is to control
the dynamics of error producing conditions (EPC) parameters at shipboard platform. Since the human error
reduction is a present great challenges of ship operator, the proposal concept has flexibility to cover the ship fleet
in an advance user interfaces. The operation approval system is capable of increasing situation awareness in the
probable causes leading to human errors. The proposed central operation approval system is an extension of the
research project entitled Human Reliability Analysis and Monitoring System Proposal in Shipboard Operations
(H-RAMS) (Project no: 114M352) supported by the Scientific and Technological Research Coucil of Turkey
(TUBITAK).

1 INTRODUCTION (Ergai et al. 2016; Akyuz et al., 2016; Soner et al.

Maritime transportation has been considered as a
human system (Rothblum, 2000). The safety level
in maritime transportation has not been increased at
the desirable level, even though the significant techn-
logical advancement and implementation of safety
regulations have been adopted in the maritime indus-
try (Chauvin et al. 2013). In addition, human factor
is one of the latent cause of the maritime accidents
(Hetherington & Mearns, 2006).
Due to the nature of maritime transportation works,
it is very critical aspect to ensure conformity among
regulatory execution and operational requirements. In
order to improve maritime safety level in shipboard
operations, the International Maritime Organization
(IMO) has been implemented a number of codes, con-
ventions, and guidelines (Knapp & Franses, 2009).
In recent years, the IMO has attempted to focus on
human factor. To illustrate, Standards of Training,
Certification and Watchkeeping (STCW) Convention
has been revised and added some critical recom-
mendations such as Bridge Resource Management.
Furthermore, Bridge Resource Management become
mandatory on January 1st, 2012 by adopting the
Manila amendments to STCW Conventions, (Chau-
vin et al. 2013). Therefore, there is strong tendency
in maritime literature to investigate the human factor
2015; Akyuz, 2015a; Ung, 2015; Chauvin et al. 2013;
Er, 2005; Grech et al. 2002). Despite aforementioned
contributions, human factor related accidents are still
one of the major concerns for maritime practition-
ers and safety managers (Akyuz, 2015b). Particularly,
role of human factor in maritime transportation indus-
try needs to be investigated by presenting proactive
tools in order to prevent human error. In this con-
text, the aim of this study is to introduce a control
mechanism on the basis of central operation approval
system which is able to enhance situational awareness
before commencement of any critical operations at
shipboard platform. Accordingly, the paper is orga-
nized as follows. This section gives brief motivation
behind the study. The second section outlines adap-
tation of EPC parameters in maritime transportation
industry. Section three introduces central operation
approval system. The final section gives conclusion
note.
2 ADAPTATION OF EPC PARAMETERS
HEART (human error assessment and reduction tech-
nique) is recognized as a well-known modelling tool
in safety and reliability analysis where critical oper-
ation is performed (Williams, 1988). It is currently

926
applicable to wide range of industries. The method has Table 1. Marine-specific EPC values.
been successfully tailored to railway (Gibson et al.,
2012), aviation (Gibson and Kirwan, 2008), nuclear Maximum
(Kirwan et al., 2004) and maritime (Akyuz, 2015c) Code Error producing condition affect
industries in order to improve human reliability. The
EPC1 Unfamiliarity 17.00
method consists of two basis parameters; the first one
EPC2 Time shortage 14.01
is generic task type (GT) and second one is the EPC EPC3 Low signal noise ratio 3.31
which defines performance shaping factor of human. EPC4 Features over ride allowed 8.72
The EPC influences probability of human error dur- EPC5 Spatial and functional 5.76
ing specific task that is being performed. It means incompatibility
that EPC is expected to influence human performance EPC6 Model mismatch 2.64
negatively and lead to increase human error proba- EPC7 Irreversibility 2.23
bility (HEP). The EPC is considered as an external EPC8 Channel overload 14.45
and internal factors (operator experience, familiarity EPC9 Technique unlearning 5.29
EPC10 Knowledge transfer 11.00
with situation, time pressure, fatigue, noise level, stress
EPC11 Performance ambiguity 8.60
level, time of day, etc.) that may heavily affect the EPC12 Misperception of risk 12.51
human performance and increase the probability of EPC13 Poor feedback 12.55
human error (Kirwan et al., 1996). The following liner EPC14 Delayed/incomplete feedback 6.72
equation is used to calculate HEP value (Williams, EPC15 Operator inexperience 10.03
1988). EPC16 Impoverished information 8.42
EPC17 Inadequate checking 2.79
EPC18 Objectives conflict 2.15
EPC19 No diversity 2.74
EPC20 Educational mismatch 2.88
The equation simply multiplies generic error proba- EPC21 Dangerous incentives 3.62
bility (GEP) and EPC value. For instance, if the user EPC22 Lack of exercise 1.64
selects EPC1 (unfamiliarity) with maximum effect of EPC23 Unreliable instruments 5.69
17.0 and GTT E (Routine, highly practiced, rapid EPC24 Absolute judgments required 1.17
EPC25 Unclear allocation of function 1.22
task involving relatively low level of skill) with a
EPC26 Progress tracking lack 3.28
human error probability of 0.02, the total HEP value EPC27 Physical capabilities 4.35
will be (0.02 17.0) 0.34 which means that the relia- EPC28 Low meaning 2.56
bility of operator for the relevant task has been made EPC29 Emotional stress 1.59
17 times worse (Gibson et al., 2012) EPC30 Ill health 0.89
Akyuz et al. (2016) have recently introduced marine EPC31 Low morale 3.00
specific EPC (m-EPCs) values in human error assess- EPC32 Inconsistency of displays 9.43
ment and reduction technique. The m-EPCs values EPC33 Poor environment 9.90
have been generated in accordance with an advanced EPC34 Low mental workload 2.63
EPC35 Sleep cycles disruption 10.30
methodological framework, including accident causa-
EPC36 Task pacing 3.85
tion, weighting, decision-making, and statistical val- EPC37 Supernumeraries 4.14
idation. Table 1 shows m-EPCs and their maximum EPC38 Age 3.61
effects.
The adaptation of EPC parameters into maritime
transportation has become a critical concerns for
shore-based safety managers since the effects of a sin- specified in terms of ship operational management.
gle m-EPC sharply differs from the other industries. Maritime safety professionals and practitioners take
For instance, the maximum effect of EPC2 sharply benefits of m-EPC values when performing human
increases and represents clear distinction from the error prediction.
other approaches. Time shortage is severely affecting
on both seafaring and shipboard related operations.
Unlike other industries, there are various critical oper- 3 CENTRAL OPERATION APPROVAL
ations completed in shipboard environment, in partic- SYSTEM
ular chemical tankers and crude oil tanker ships. Due
to the commercial reasons, physical or mental pres- Central operation approval system is a part of H-
sures to complete each task as fast as possible may RAMS project which provides a smart knowledge-
cause a significant human error (Akyuz et al., 2016). based software to perform a comprehensive human
Furthermore, EPC 8 has great influence on human reliability analysis and monitoring system in shipboard
error prediction since its effect considerably increases, operations. The system has capable of increasing situa-
specifically there are several critical operations per- tion awareness in the probable causes leading to human
formed. At that time, responsible crew may stacks up errors. It is an application interfaces in human relia-
due to the simultaneous presentation of non-redundant bility assessment modelling in ship fleet management
information (Akyuz et al., 2016). Within this con- level. Thus, ship management companies are capa-
text, the adaptation of m-EPC parameter has been ble of monitoring and analyzing the probable human

927

Figure 1. The framework of central operation approval
system.
errors along with the critical shipboard operations
such as cargo loading, discharging, bunkering, ballast-
ing, de-ballasting, hold or tank cleaning, gas inerting,
tank cooling, etc. The framework of central operation
approval system is illustrated in Figure 1.
As illustrated in Figure 1, central operation approval
system requires ship to log in the I-GATS software to
perform an extensive human reliability analysis for
critical shipboard operations. A user / master of ship,
for instance, selects the relevant critical shipboard
operation from the screen. If the aforementioned oper-
ation shows an alteration, the master of vessel is free to
make changes. Then, the master can perform a calcula-
tion by using user interfaces through I-GATS software
which basically tracks following steps prior receiv-
ing operational approval from the ship management
company.
Select the operation: A set of critical shipboard
operations representing a wide range of alternatives
are defined in the user interface. The critical shipboard
operation may contain main and sub-tasks. Each sub-
tasks can give detail about the main task. The HEP
value for each subtasks can be calculated one by one.
Then, combination of them can give final HEP value
with respect to correlation between the sub-tasks.
928
Define the conditions: In this user interface, a
wide range of shipboard environmental conditions
are defined. The scenarios include various condi-
tions such as working environment, crew experiences,
noise level, stress, crew workforce morale, disruption,
available time for task, time of day or organization
quality, etc.
Assign the GTT: The relevant generic task type
is determined in accordance with nine qualitative
descriptions of actions through A to M (William,
1988). Then, quantitative GEP value is assigned for
each sub- step in conjunction with GTT. The master of
ship assigns GTT for each task by using user interface.
Determine the m-EPC: In this user interface, rele-
vant m-EPC is presented to user in accordance with
the conditions defined in user interface 2. The user
may select relevant m-EPC for each sub-tasks. If there
is more than one m-EPC, then system will allow
user to operate the analytic hierarchy process (AHP)
algorithm progressively.
Result: The HEP value of each sub-task is cal-
culated by using equation (1). The algorithm will
check whether the sub-tasks have dependency or not.
Then, the final HEP value is acquired on the basis of
dependency rule.
Actions: After the final HEP is calculated, the sys-
tem forwards the outcomes to the ship management
company to receive approval. The results are evalu-
ated by ship management company who decides if the
HEP final value is acceptable level or not. If so, the
system allows user to perform operation. Otherwise,
the operation is cancelled. The system recommends
related recovery measures to reduce HEP values and
then allows operation.
Data storage: Each ship in the ship management
companys fleet sends the results of operation. The
performance results are stored in the database to mea-
sure effectiveness of human performance in critical
shipboard operations.
4 CONCLUSION
This study proposes a distance control system to
re-duce the human error likelihood in critical ship-
board operations. The system evaluates the current
EPC parameter in shipboard environment. Applica-
tion outcomes support the ship fleet database which
is used to enhance ship operation assistance guide-
lines (i.e. operation alerts, control checklist revisions,
procedural improvements, and situational awareness).
Consequently, the system enables decision support
system to the various critical operations while it has
potential to deliver proactive safety analysis. The fur-
ther study deals with the intelligent system concept in
determination of EPC sets.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The proposed central operation approval system is
an extension of the research project entitled Human
Reliability Analysis and Monitoring System Proposal
in Shipboard Operations (H-RAMS) (Project no:
114M352) supported by the Scientific and Technolog-
ical Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK).
REFERENCES
Akyuz, E. (2015a). Quantification of human error probability
towards the gas inerting process onboard crude oil tankers.
Safety Science: 80: 7786.
Akyuz, E. (2015b). A hybrid accident analysis method to
assess potential navigational contingencies: The case of
ship grounding. Safety Science: 79: 268276.
Akyuz, E. (2015c). A decisionmaking model proposal on
human reliability analysis on board ships. PhD. The-
sis, Istanbul Technical University, Graduate School of
Science, Engineering and Technology, May 2015.
Akyuz, E., Celik, M., Cebi, S. (2016). A phase of comprehen-
sive research to determine marine-specific EPC values in
human error assessment and reduction technique. Safety
Science 87: 6375.
Chauvin, C., Lardjane, S., Morel, G., Clostermann, J. P., &
Langard, B. (2013). Human and organistional factors in
maritime accidents: Analysis of collisions at sea using the
HFACS. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 59, 2637.
Er, Z. (2005, October). Definitions of human factor analysis
for the maritime safety management process. In Interna-
tional Association of Maritime Universities (IAMU) 6th
Annual General Assembly and Conference.
Ergai, A., Cohen, T., Sharp, J., Wiegmann, D., Gramopad-
hye, A., & Shappell, S. (2016). Assessment of the human
factors analysis and classification system (HFACS): Intra
rater and inter rater reliability. Safety science, 82, 393
398.
Gibson, W.H., Mills, A.M., Smith, S., Kirwan, B.K., 2012.
Railway action reliability assessment, a railway specific
approach to human error quantification. Rail Human
929
Factors. Supporting reliability, safety and cost reduction.
Taylor & Francis.
Grech, M. R., Horberry, T., & Smith, A. (2002, September).
Human error in maritime operations: Analyses of acci-
dent reports using the Leximancer tool. In Proceedings of
the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting
(Vol. 46, No. 19, pp. 17181721). SAGE Publications.
Hetherington, C., Flin, R., & Mearns, K. (2006). Safety in
shipping: The human element. Journal of safety research,
37(4), 401411.
Kirwan, B. and Gibson, W. H., 2008. Human reliability
assessment (CARA) development for EUROCONTROL
Q07/22268NC.
Kirwan, B., Gibson, H., Kennedy, R., Edmunds, J., Cooksley,
G., Umbers, I., 2004. Nuclear Action Reliability Assess-
ment (NARA): A Data Based HRA Tool. Probabilistic
Safety Assessment and Management: 12061211.
Kirwan, B., Kennedy, R., Taylor-Adams, S., Lambert, B.
(1996). The validation of three human reliability quan-
tification techniques THERP, HEART and JHEDI. Part
1 Technique descriptions and validation issues. Applied
Ergonomics 27: 359373.
Knapp, S., & Franses, P. H. (2009). Does ratification matter
and do major conventions improve safety and decrease
pollution in shipping?. Marine Policy, 33(5), 826846.
Rothblum, A. M. (2000, October). Human error and marine
safety. In National Safety Council Congress and Expo,
Orlando, FL.
Soner, O., Asan, U., & Celik, M. (2015). Use of HFACS
FCM in fire prevention modelling on board ships. Safety
Science, 77, 2541.
Ung, S. T. (2015). A weighted CREAM model for maritime
human reliability analysis. Safety science, 72, 144152.
Williams, J.C. (1988). A data-based method for assessing
and reducing human error to improve operational perfor-
mance. In: Proceedings of IEEE 4th conference on human
factor and power plants. Monterey, California: 436453.
(Author et al. 1989) instead of (Author, Author & Author
1989).